HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Anaheim Ducks
Notices

Come On Scotty!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-27-2007, 04:11 PM
  #26
Sojourn
Global Moderator
Where's the kaboom?
 
Sojourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 24,444
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devilsfanatic View Post
Hey, some of the schmo's here were the ones who said take a mid-level prospect and a 3rd for him. If anyone deserves to be lol'd at it's the panic attacks.
I won't deny that. Thank God those schmo's are vast minorities, but you're certainly right. Melodrama seems to occur a lot on boards like these.

Sojourn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2007, 04:53 PM
  #27
devilsrock
Registered User
 
devilsrock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Great Neck, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 479
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by treybrown View Post
That's a good point, that's a really good point. Believe me when I say that he is the worst GM in the league right now.


But this thread is about Scotty and how he needs to come up with a answer. He's a great player and I know that he's won it all but he needs to come up with a answer.

I'll give him call!
I think burk is already sitting on scotty's answer. he just didn't go public with it yet.

devilsrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2007, 07:03 PM
  #28
Randall Graves*
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 18,622
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by puckstopper55 View Post
this might sound dumb, but I think he has 1 year left on his deal right? Why not just say "the hell with this guy",. trade him for a mid level prospect and a 3rd rounder to a team, get the cap space, sign Penner and be done with it. At worste you lose out on his services for 1 season, and at best you get a prospect, a 3rd rounder and Penner, all while the guy might never play again.
Because with him I think this team is the favorite to repeat.

Without him I think this is just a good team.

Randall Graves* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2007, 07:42 PM
  #29
mmbt
Cheeky Monkey
 
mmbt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 9,252
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RallyKiller View Post
Because with him I think this team is the favorite to repeat.
Yeah, but if you think they're a favorite with Nieds, does that mean you bite the bullet with Penner to maximize next year's chances? Or let Penner go to keep some cap flexibility?

And if Nieds retires, do you get a jump on the rebuilding by taking what is probably 60%+ likely to be a high 1st rounder and saving some cap room? Or by keeping a good young player?

It's not like the Ducks are totally screwed in any scenario (hey, you can't be too bad off if you're the defending Cup champs), but I also don't think there's a great answer. But hey, this is how the capped NHL is going to be ... if you're successful, players become unaffordable and you have to make some tough choices. That's just the way it is.

mmbt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2007, 06:58 PM
  #30
Randall Graves*
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 18,622
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmbt View Post
Yeah, but if you think they're a favorite with Nieds, does that mean you bite the bullet with Penner to maximize next year's chances? Or let Penner go to keep some cap flexibility?

And if Nieds retires, do you get a jump on the rebuilding by taking what is probably 60%+ likely to be a high 1st rounder and saving some cap room? Or by keeping a good young player?

It's not like the Ducks are totally screwed in any scenario (hey, you can't be too bad off if you're the defending Cup champs), but I also don't think there's a great answer. But hey, this is how the capped NHL is going to be ... if you're successful, players become unaffordable and you have to make some tough choices. That's just the way it is.
But financially I don't think it's doable to keep Penner and Niedermayer at those salaries if ownership won't spend to the cap, even then we are really close.

If I knew that Niedermayer and Selanne would come back for one more year, I would bite the bullet and take the picks because Kunitz, Getzlaf and Perry are all key guys we need to sign next year.

You also have to measure when you think Penner may be worth the deal, and hopefully exceed it's worth. If Niedermayer retires I think then you match. Either way Perry and Getz are going to want similar money whether we have him or not I presume.

If Niedermayer comes back I think most people would look at this team and say it's definitely the favorite.

without him, but with Penner I'd say we have a chance, but on a more level playing field.

Randall Graves* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2007, 08:40 PM
  #31
Sandman33
 
Sandman33's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,080
vCash: 500
It boils down to this...

One way or another we WILL have to pull up a rookie and he will need to be good. Fortunately we have Bobby Ryan and Miller to work with. Miller proved that he can play during the playoffs last year and Ryan seems to be fine as well.

Schneider replaces Scott if needed

and Bertuzzi replaces Teemu if needed.

The rookie replaces Penner (probably Ryan bc of his size)

Its that simple and it should work.

We still have an awesome team with Pronger, Beauchemin, Schnieder, Bertuzzi, Getzlaf, Kunitz, Perry, and the whole Pahlsson shutdown line.

Let alone we still have Giguere in net and Bryz as backup for now.

Sandman33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2007, 03:46 PM
  #32
Sojourn
Global Moderator
Where's the kaboom?
 
Sojourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 24,444
vCash: 50
I don't agree that it's that simple, Sandman. Schneider might step in to Scott's vacant spot, but he doesn't replace him. There is no doubt at all that with Schneider and without Scott Niedermayer our defense is noticably worse.

The same goes with Bertuzzi and Teemu. Teemu was a 48 goal scorer this past season. Bertuzzi is not going to score that many goals. He might end up with more points, depending on which Bertuzzi we get on the team, but he won't replace Teemu's goals.

One way or another, if we lose Teemu and Scott this team is weaker than the one that took the Cup last season.

Sojourn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2007, 04:44 PM
  #33
Sandman33
 
Sandman33's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,080
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sojourn View Post
I don't agree that it's that simple, Sandman. Schneider might step in to Scott's vacant spot, but he doesn't replace him. There is no doubt at all that with Schneider and without Scott Niedermayer our defense is noticably worse.

The same goes with Bertuzzi and Teemu. Teemu was a 48 goal scorer this past season. Bertuzzi is not going to score that many goals. He might end up with more points, depending on which Bertuzzi we get on the team, but he won't replace Teemu's goals.

One way or another, if we lose Teemu and Scott this team is weaker than the one that took the Cup last season.
Yes I do understand that the team will be weaker. Moreso because of Scotts absence than Teemu's. Scott really is unreplaceable but I sure am glad the Schnieder is back there in his place.

If our Defense is a little weaker than before thats fine. We had the best D in the league hands down last season and will arguably still have the best now.

They didnt have a hard time winning the cup last season. There were no game sevens and most of the time they just rolled right over everyone...except Detroit.

I think the team will be just fine. And depending on Bert/Schneiders play and Ryans skillset, will win the cup again.

I think Bert will be as good and maybe even better than before. The man WANTS to play now and he went out of his way to find Burke. He just needs to get his agression back. He lost his edge after the Moore stint. He will do quite well.

Anyone can bash me if they like, but I said the same thing about Teemu when he wanted to come back.


Last edited by Sandman33: 07-29-2007 at 04:51 PM.
Sandman33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2007, 05:38 PM
  #34
Sojourn
Global Moderator
Where's the kaboom?
 
Sojourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 24,444
vCash: 50
My belief is that Detroit will have the best D in the league, if Scotty retires. They lost Schneider, and replaced him with an even better defenseman in Rafalski.

I'm certainly not going to bash you for stating your opinion.

Sojourn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2007, 10:43 PM
  #35
Sandman33
 
Sandman33's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,080
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sojourn View Post
My belief is that Detroit will have the best D in the league, if Scotty retires. They lost Schneider, and replaced him with an even better defenseman in Rafalski.

I'm certainly not going to bash you for stating your opinion.
Good man,

Detroit will have Lidstrom and Rafalski as the Anchors. But who else is a real champ on their D?

Im a bit partial to Pronger, Beauchemin, and Schnieder.

Sandman33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2007, 01:22 AM
  #36
SC2008
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,008
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by puckstopper55 View Post
this might sound dumb, but I think he has 1 year left on his deal right? Why not just say "the hell with this guy",. trade him for a mid level prospect and a 3rd rounder to a team, get the cap space, sign Penner and be done with it. At worste you lose out on his services for 1 season, and at best you get a prospect, a 3rd rounder and Penner, all while the guy might never play again.
Wow, fans always talk about the lack of loyalty of players. Here you are trying to banish a Conn Smythe winner who just helped you bring the Cup home to Anaheim.

Penner and Niedermeyer are too completely separate events. Hell this should be a non-event.

Let Penner go.

Even if you did have the cap space. He's not worth the 4.5 or however much he was signed for. Better to save your cap for guys like Getzlaf and Co. next year.

Leave Niedermeyer alone. Burke is doing the right thing by respecting a Veteran. Sends a message to the team as well as potential free agents next year that if you become a Duck you will be treated with respect.

Can imagine the repercussions if Burke did trade Nieds?

SC2008 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2007, 05:31 AM
  #37
iLau
Always Mighty
 
iLau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,394
vCash: 500
At the end of the day all these retirement decisions are screwing us over. I know we couldn't have won the cup without Teemu and Nieds and I respect both players, but their retirement dilemma is hurting this team.

iLau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2007, 06:28 AM
  #38
ktulu98
Registered User
 
ktulu98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: slovakia
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 1,762
vCash: 500
maybe they are hurting
but rather give them time to think about it, like rushing them to retire ASAP with option if they would have time they would be back

ktulu98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2007, 06:44 AM
  #39
Fishy Scales
Registered User
 
Fishy Scales's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: schmocation
Posts: 3,670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsrock View Post
yea but his insanity is causing the pay scale to go up on rfa around the league. thats what is making him such an ass. I think he is the reason why the devils haven't signed parise yet becouse of the deal to vanek and now penner.
I see this argument a lot, and just like most other people you fail to deliver reasonable support for this opinion. Why exactly does possibly escalating RFA salaries make him an ass? Other than you possibly having trouble signing your man Parise which is entirely your own problem? Why not cry foul about Boston signing Chara to a $7.5M/year deal and thus driving up the cost of UFAs? Why must RFAs make less money than UFAs?

Fishy Scales is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2007, 07:34 AM
  #40
snarktacular
Moderator
Ducks tank is on!
 
snarktacular's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 16,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Man View Post
I see this argument a lot, and just like most other people you fail to deliver reasonable support for this opinion. Why exactly does possibly escalating RFA salaries make him an ass? Other than you possibly having trouble signing your man Parise which is entirely your own problem? Why not cry foul about Boston signing Chara to a $7.5M/year deal and thus driving up the cost of UFAs? Why must RFAs make less money than UFAs?
Little known fact: Chara and his 7.5 million actually makes less than Niedermayer and his 6.75 million as a percentage of the cap at the time the deal was signed.

And RFAs should make less money than UFAs because 1) chances are they're less proven and less likely to live up to those numbers and 2) they're not free to be bid upon by all teams (many teams won't want to give up picks) and thus there's less demand. How is wanting to avoid long terms at high prices and higher risk not reasonable?

snarktacular is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2007, 08:49 AM
  #41
Fishy Scales
Registered User
 
Fishy Scales's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: schmocation
Posts: 3,670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by obobo23 View Post
Little known fact: Chara and his 7.5 million actually makes less than Niedermayer and his 6.75 million as a percentage of the cap at the time the deal was signed.

And RFAs should make less money than UFAs because 1) chances are they're less proven and less likely to live up to those numbers and 2) they're not free to be bid upon by all teams (many teams won't want to give up picks) and thus there's less demand. How is wanting to avoid long terms at high prices and higher risk not reasonable?
Maybe Chara was a bad example, but my point is that Chara isn't nearly as good as Scott Niedermayer or Chris Pronger, yet he's one of the highest paid players in the league. A better comparison might be Gomez's $7M per to Vanek's similar numbers. Who'd you rather have on your team?

In fact, your argument is so full of holes it'd make Swiss cheese envious. RFAs should make less money? Just taste that. SHOULD? Who the hell gets to dictate what they SHOULD earn??? You? Any other fan? No, the market will dictate it. You argue that "chances are they're less proves and less likely yo live up to those numbers." The first part is offset by having their best years in front of them and the second part is utter conjecture.

Your second argument is even more ridiculous. Anybody who wants to can throw an offer sheet provided they didn't trade their picks away beforehand (in which case they have themselves to blame). The demand has NOTHING to do with it, and even if it does it still means RFA salaries are kept LOWER because there'd be less competition to sign the player. Wanting to avoid long terms at high prices and higher risk is just as much an issue concerning UFAs as it is about RFAs.

I reiterate that I'd rather have Vanek on my team than Gomez seven days of the week and twice on Sundays. Even with the picks. That really is the only relevant issue here, so if Lowe offers contracts to free agents (yes, FREE AGENTS) that he likes, who the hell are you to question his motives?

Fishy Scales is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2007, 10:02 AM
  #42
Ducks
Registered User
 
Ducks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Riverside, Calif.
Country: United States
Posts: 1,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Man View Post
I reiterate that I'd rather have Vanek on my team than Gomez seven days of the week and twice on Sundays. Even with the picks.
That still doesn't change the fact that you have...um...wait who do you actually have on your team?

Ducks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2007, 11:09 AM
  #43
Fishy Scales
Registered User
 
Fishy Scales's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: schmocation
Posts: 3,670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by soapninja View Post
That still doesn't change the fact that you have...um...wait who do you actually have on your team?
Cute. Especially with the point of the whole discussion blowing about above your head.

Fishy Scales is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2007, 02:05 PM
  #44
Sandman33
 
Sandman33's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,080
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by soapninja View Post
That still doesn't change the fact that you have...um...wait who do you actually have on your team?
Umm...He has franchise player and all around league all star Dustin Penner!

LOL Kidding aside. I do see the point of his argument and enjoyed reading it.

Sandman33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2007, 05:14 PM
  #45
Schitzo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,617
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by obobo23 View Post
And RFAs should make less money than UFAs because 1) chances are they're less proven and less likely to live up to those numbers and 2) they're not free to be bid upon by all teams (many teams won't want to give up picks) and thus there's less demand. How is wanting to avoid long terms at high prices and higher risk not reasonable?
1) Getting RFAs at a younger age is a two-sided coin. Yes, they're less proven, but they also have their best years still ahead of them, instead of behind them. If Penner develops like Lowe hopes, you don't think he'll be more productive at age 24-29 than someone like Smyth or Bertuzzi at age 32-37?

Traditionally UFAs seem to be overpaid for past achievements, and expecting them to maintain the same level of production is just as optimistic as paying an RFA based on potential.

2) Compensation certainly limits the number of cases where an offer sheet is a good idea, which is why it doesn't happen very often. That said, I don't see how an offer sheet is really any different than a sign-and-trade. If Burke came out and said "we weren't going to be able to come to terms with Penner, so we traded his rights to the Oilers for a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd", the end result would be the same.

If GMs were so scared of the idea that they have to give something to get something back, the league wouldn't have trades, we'd just have 30 GMs sitting on their hands until UFA season opened up.

Schitzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2007, 05:50 PM
  #46
renodave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 1,473
vCash: 500
While it was magnanimous of Burke to give Nieds and Selanne "all the time they need" to contemplate their retirement, it was a bad business decision because it forced Burke to go boldly into the FA market and reduce the team's ability to deal with the cap/RFA issues. I think it's safe to assume that he and the team are proceeding on the assumption that both nieds and selanne will not return.

renodave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2007, 08:32 PM
  #47
Sojourn
Global Moderator
Where's the kaboom?
 
Sojourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 24,444
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by dburdick View Post
While it was magnanimous of Burke to give Nieds and Selanne "all the time they need" to contemplate their retirement, it was a bad business decision because it forced Burke to go boldly into the FA market and reduce the team's ability to deal with the cap/RFA issues. I think it's safe to assume that he and the team are proceeding on the assumption that both nieds and selanne will not return.
I don't agree. If that were true, the Niedermayer salary wouldn't be a calculation for him, and I don't think that's what is happening. What he is doing is preparing for the possibility that they both retire, which is completely different.

Sojourn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2007, 08:35 PM
  #48
snarktacular
Moderator
Ducks tank is on!
 
snarktacular's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 16,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Man View Post
Maybe Chara was a bad example, but my point is that Chara isn't nearly as good as Scott Niedermayer or Chris Pronger, yet he's one of the highest paid players in the league. A better comparison might be Gomez's $7M per to Vanek's similar numbers. Who'd you rather have on your team?

In fact, your argument is so full of holes it'd make Swiss cheese envious. RFAs should make less money? Just taste that. SHOULD? Who the hell gets to dictate what they SHOULD earn??? You? Any other fan? No, the market will dictate it. You argue that "chances are they're less proves and less likely yo live up to those numbers." The first part is offset by having their best years in front of them and the second part is utter conjecture.

Your second argument is even more ridiculous. Anybody who wants to can throw an offer sheet provided they didn't trade their picks away beforehand (in which case they have themselves to blame). The demand has NOTHING to do with it, and even if it does it still means RFA salaries are kept LOWER because there'd be less competition to sign the player. Wanting to avoid long terms at high prices and higher risk is just as much an issue concerning UFAs as it is about RFAs.

I reiterate that I'd rather have Vanek on my team than Gomez seven days of the week and twice on Sundays. Even with the picks. That really is the only relevant issue here, so if Lowe offers contracts to free agents (yes, FREE AGENTS) that he likes, who the hell are you to question his motives?
For my first assertion, no I don't get to choose that RFAs should make more money. But assuming that Penner is more risky than Smyth to live up to their salaries, I'm sure you can see why a rational GM would either pay him less or sign him to a shorter term contract. And the "market" that should determine his worth does consist (mostly) of rational, sane GMs. I don't see how you can argue that at all. Now if you contend that he's not more risky, well that's your perspective. I've seen far too many promising rookies flame out to claim that Penner is a sure thing to become a consistent 70 point scorer and dominant cycling threat (which he'll be paid like). Sure he probably has his best years in front of him, he'll probably improve his all around game, but Joffrey Lupul might have something to say about that.

As to my second point, by demand I didn't really mean demand as in how much people want Penner, but demand as in actual number of clubs who will bid on him. And you agree, you said there's "less competition to sign the player." Less competition means lower salary. So you're actually agreeing with my point.

I'm not questioning Lowe's motives, I think he's being short-sighted as to the effects of his actions. And BTW, I would say Vanek and Gomez are about even. I didn't really have as much of an objection to Vanek's contract as Penner's. Vanek is being paid like an 80 point player, as is Gomez. Difference between Vanek and Penner is Vanek has scored 80 points and Penner has not once scored at his contract. However, Vanek has only done it once and not against the other team's top checking lines and defensemen. So Vanek has to only stay the same to live up to his contract while Penner has to improve massively to live up to his contract.

But you should realize that Gomez still likely has a little bit of improving to do as well, and has scored over 70 points 3 times already. So you're as sure as you can be that he'll produce. And his 7 year contract should pretty much all be at that level, there will perhaps only be a decline in the last year of the contract. He's a safe bet, he deserves his contract.

snarktacular is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2007, 08:47 PM
  #49
snarktacular
Moderator
Ducks tank is on!
 
snarktacular's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 16,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schitzo View Post
1) Getting RFAs at a younger age is a two-sided coin. Yes, they're less proven, but they also have their best years still ahead of them, instead of behind them. If Penner develops like Lowe hopes, you don't think he'll be more productive at age 24-29 than someone like Smyth or Bertuzzi at age 32-37?

Traditionally UFAs seem to be overpaid for past achievements, and expecting them to maintain the same level of production is just as optimistic as paying an RFA based on potential.

2) Compensation certainly limits the number of cases where an offer sheet is a good idea, which is why it doesn't happen very often. That said, I don't see how an offer sheet is really any different than a sign-and-trade. If Burke came out and said "we weren't going to be able to come to terms with Penner, so we traded his rights to the Oilers for a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd", the end result would be the same.

If GMs were so scared of the idea that they have to give something to get something back, the league wouldn't have trades, we'd just have 30 GMs sitting on their hands until UFA season opened up.
1) We only have Bertuzzi for 2 years. He may fail (in fact I think it's likely, I don't like this signing), but 2 years is nothing compared to 5 years. And by you saying "If Penner develops like Lowe hopes" you're ignoring the main point in point 1. But I will say Penner for the next year or 2 will be greatly behind Smyth in production, and the next 3 years will be about even or Penner will slightly beat Smyth. They should end up about even. But that's SHOULD, there's still a decent chance he doesn't.

Yes traditionally UFAs have been overpaid, not in terms of dollars but years. That was more of an issue when they were UFA at 31. UFA moving to 27 means there's 4 prime years being included.

2) An sign-and-trade is better than an offer sheet because the contract price will be lower (he doesn't have to outbid the prior club), it won't piss off other GMs (who rightly or wrongly have gotten upset), and the prior team will get more customized, useful assets.

snarktacular is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2007, 06:48 AM
  #50
Fishy Scales
Registered User
 
Fishy Scales's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: schmocation
Posts: 3,670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by obobo23 View Post
For my first assertion, no I don't get to choose that RFAs should make more money. But assuming that Penner is more risky than Smyth to live up to their salaries, I'm sure you can see why a rational GM would either pay him less or sign him to a shorter term contract. And the "market" that should determine his worth does consist (mostly) of rational, sane GMs. I don't see how you can argue that at all. Now if you contend that he's not more risky, well that's your perspective. I've seen far too many promising rookies flame out to claim that Penner is a sure thing to become a consistent 70 point scorer and dominant cycling threat (which he'll be paid like). Sure he probably has his best years in front of him, he'll probably improve his all around game, but Joffrey Lupul might have something to say about that.
But Smyth earns a lot more than Penner and I believe that five years from now Penner is much, much more likely to be the bargain. Admittedly, Lowe has said he'd like a mulligan on Smyth, but the reason he wasn't signed was that he probably won't live up to the salary he commands in the later years of his contract. Lowe obviously sees the potential in Penner to outperform his $4.25M down the road and takes the chance in order to improve his team further (for the record, I think the talk that Lowe has been unable to improve through trades and UFAs is a bit out of proportion; he has traded for Joni Pitkänen and signed Souray and Tärnström which has directly addressed his most pressing needs).

Quote:
Originally Posted by obobo23 View Post
As to my second point, by demand I didn't really mean demand as in how much people want Penner, but demand as in actual number of clubs who will bid on him. And you agree, you said there's "less competition to sign the player." Less competition means lower salary. So you're actually agreeing with my point.
Then what's the problem? If you argue that the low demand for RFAs will keep their salaries low, why are you bothered by this in the first place? Sounds like you're condradicting yourself a bit here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by obobo23 View Post
I'm not questioning Lowe's motives, I think he's being short-sighted as to the effects of his actions. And BTW, I would say Vanek and Gomez are about even. I didn't really have as much of an objection to Vanek's contract as Penner's. Vanek is being paid like an 80 point player, as is Gomez. Difference between Vanek and Penner is Vanek has scored 80 points and Penner has not once scored at his contract. However, Vanek has only done it once and not against the other team's top checking lines and defensemen. So Vanek has to only stay the same to live up to his contract while Penner has to improve massively to live up to his contract.
Again, Lowe has to overpay and hope the overpayment turns into a good contract. Otherwise the offer sheet is utterly pointless. Lowe obviously believes Penner will be worth his contract and more down the road, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by obobo23 View Post
But you should realize that Gomez still likely has a little bit of improving to do as well, and has scored over 70 points 3 times already. So you're as sure as you can be that he'll produce. And his 7 year contract should pretty much all be at that level, there will perhaps only be a decline in the last year of the contract. He's a safe bet, he deserves his contract.
In my opinion the only safe bet about Gomez is that he won't live up to his contract. He's good, I'd like him on the Oilers, but he's not $7M good. He and Drury are going to eat up a very large chunk of cap space for a while without being the impact players they are paid to be. Gomez could, and probably will, improve, but he's a defensively suspect playmaker who has trouble producing at a PPG rate. If two years from now Dustin Penner outproduces Gomez, which is not unlikely at all, will Lowe still be an idiot?

Fishy Scales is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:02 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.